Archives

Categories

Meta

Einstein’s Proof

Einstein’s proof that is not

The effect is known as gravitational lensing, (light bending due to gravity) and the amount of bending is one of the predictions of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity. But it also happens to light passing near the Moon, even though the Moon is too small in mass to noticeably bend light.

Occultation complications

Astronomers make various measurements using stars and planets occulted by the limb of the Moon. In other words, they use the edge of the Moon’s disk as it covers the star: “The term occultation is most frequently used to describe those relatively frequent occasions when the Moon passes in front of a star during the course of its orbital motion around the Earth. A star that is occulted by the moon will disappear or reappear in 0.1 seconds or less on the moon’s edge, or limb. Events that take place on the Moon’s dark limb are of particular interest to observers, because the lack of glare allows these occultations to more easily be observed and timed.”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occultation

Stars hanging on the face or off the edge of the Moon for more than 0.1 seconds.

A theoretical problem arises when a star hangs motionless for a period at the point of occultation, (limb), sometimes hangs some distance away from the Moon or even appears to pass onto the Moon’s surface. They tend to sit there motionless.
John Herschel is said to have observed such an effect. These anomalous observations are not reported by astronomers today, not because they no longer happen. Astronomers are mathematicians first and astronomers second – ask one and he will proudly admit it. Hanging stars are not conducive to elegant math!

On September 3rd 1905, H. P. Hollis (Royal Observatory) grew tired of waiting for the stars to occult…The first record I have of this is on May the 4th 1783 with around twenty other reports up to 1956. Modern astronomers it seems ignore such mavericks, maybe they cast doubt on Einstein’s ‘light bending in a gravitational field’, but these observations most certainly cast doubt on the science of occultation. This may be an optical phenomenon, but are the so called “eclipse proofs of relativity” also optical-non-relativistic?William Corliss, The Moon and Planets – Moon ALX8

Can this be proof of a lunar atmosphere, that would disrupt the textbooks of lunar astronomy? NASA recorded a hundred mile lunar water vapour cloud and it had to float in something?
Radio waves appear to do the same thing and so we cannot appeal to radio astronomy: On December 15th 1972 the Apollo spacecraft Endeavour passed behind the Moon. The radio signals continued when there should have been none.
See: William Corliss, The Moon and Planets – Moon ALX10

Nature journal: “The reception of radio signals from the orbiting lunar spaceship America after its occultation behind the lunar limb is a confirmation of results reported for the Apollo 15 ship Endeavour 1. Similar observations arranged with the lunar command module during the Apollo 16 mission were unsuccessful because transmissions from the command module did not occur while the Moon was above our horizon.” 23

Can it be that there is an unrecognised process operating here?; surely not, physics knows everything. But the light and radio phenomena appear to be part of the same effect?

There is a discussion on this subject here at space.stackexchange.com/questions/ but no solid answers and no experiments. They seem to be unaware of the Nature article and the Apollo missions.

There are all manner of other anomalous effects experienced during eclipses:

Lunar Eclipses And Radio Propagation

One can understand why long range radio propagation might be affected during a solar eclipse, because the ionizing radiation of the sun is temporarily intercepted by the moon. There is no such obvious explanation for radio propagation problems during lunar eclipses. Nevertheless, we have the following observation by L.M. Nash:

There is a long history of observed gravity-related phenomena during solar eclipses, especially during the period of totality…
“…Allais reported another observation of the effect during the solar eclipse of October 2, 1959 using the paraconical pendulum he invented. This study earned him the 1959 Galabert Prize of the French Astronautical Society and made him a laureate of the US Gravity Research Foundation for his 1959 memoir on gravity.

Shadow bands moving across the face of a house during the total eclipse of December 22, 1870.
J.L. Codona, in a long article in Sky and Telescope, described eclipse shadow bands in these words:

“There mysterious gray ripples are sometimes seen flitting over the ground within a minute or two of to tality. The bands are initially faint and jumbled; but as totality approaches, they become more organized, their spacing decreases to a few centimeters, and their visibility improves. After totality ends the bands can reappear and become progressively fainter and more disorganized until they disappear.

“Shadow bands seem to move perpendicularly to their length, but this is only an illusion. It stems from a lack of features that allow the eye to track motion along the length of the bands.”

Codona explains the shadow bands as basically a twinkling effect involving the thin solar crescent just before and after totality. The twinkling is created by turbulence only tens or hundreds of feet above the ground.

The eclipse shadow bands, like so many other “well-explained” phenomena, display idiosyncracies that do not dovetail well with theory. Codona mentions two of these: (1) Bands of different colors, travelling at different speeds, are sometimes seen superimposed on each other; and (2) Bands of giant size have been observed. (Codona, Johana L.; “The Enigma of Shadow Bands,” Sky and Telescope, 81: 482, 1991.)

It cannot be claimed that astronomers are unaware of all of these potential problems. It can however be claimed that they ignore them. Looking at the above, it can only be assumed that it is impossible to get an accurate fix on a star close to the Sun :-

Solar Eclipse Corona

Yahoo Answers: What is the size of the solar corona?Best Answer: It extends several solar diameters into space – and varies with the violence/actions on the sun’s surface. A flare will push it outwards further, and a sunspot will ‘calm’ the corona, reducing it’s reach into space. On average, it’s thought to be 4 to 6 million kilometers above the surface along the sun’s equator, and 2 to 3 million kilometers above it’s surface at the poles, but it can vary by 1 to 5 times, based on surface activity.https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120622103743AAsNr2I

What happens to light when you look at a star through the solar corona?

Refraction

Wiki: Corona, outermost region of the Sun’s atmosphere, consisting of plasma (hot ionized gas). It has a temperature of approximately two million kelvins and an extremely low density.https://www.britannica.com/topic/corona-Sun

The corona is a plasma, a plasma refracts light and so any stars viewed through the plasma will be refracted and not of true position.

researchgate.net: Not only in plasma , there are many other cases where phase velocity is more than speed of light, but group velocity (at which the energy propagates) is less than velocity of light. vg*vc=c^2 is relation which dictates it.

Wiki: Snell’s law (also known as Snell–Descartes law and the law of refraction) is a formula used to describe the relationship between the angles of incidence and refraction, when referring to light or other waves passing through a boundary between two different isotropic media, such as water, glass, or air.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law

And so starlight passing through solar plasma is refracted (bent). Light passing through a plasma also seems to travel at trans-light velocities, but this is confused by the gobbledygook math language of physics.

Proof of Einstein’s theories

Hypothesised bending of light as it passes the sun.

Einstein’s initial presentation of special relativity was in 1905. His general relativity is a theory of gravitation developed in the years 1907–1915.

Classical (newtonian) physics also predicts the bending of light.

It was not until 1936 that Einstein predicted that rays of light from the same direction that skirt the edges of the Sun would converge to a focal point approximately 542 AUs from the Sun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens This effect is known as gravitational lensing, and the amount of bending is one of the predictions of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Wiki

Arthur Stanley Eddington

Wiki: The first observation of light deflection was performed by noting the change in position of stars as they passed near the Sun on the celestial sphere. The observations were performed in May 1919 by Arthur Eddington, Frank Watson Dyson, and their collaborators during a total solar eclipse. The solar eclipse allowed the stars near the Sun to be observed. Observations were made simultaneously in the cities of Sobral, Ceará, Brazil and in São Tomé and Príncipe on the west coast of Africa. The observations demonstrated that the light from stars passing close to the Sun was slightly bent, so that stars appeared slightly out of position.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#Solar_gravitational_lens

Light from stars is fine for theories, but when light and radio waves are bent by a body that the same theory predicts is too small to bend light we have a serious problem.

The Wiki page on Eddington describes the solar observations as if they were a walk in the park, but in fact they were highly questionable as were Einstein’s theories to many astronomers and physicists of the day. Eclipses rarely show themselves above an observatory and the Eddington expedition had to use portable telescopes in bad seeing conditions in the jungle.

“Note: In his book ‘Principia’ (1687), Isaac Newton predicted the bending of light by a gravitational field. Isaac Newton even predicted black holes.Wiki: Johann Georg von Soldner (1776 – 1833) is now mostly remembered for having concluded — based on Newton’s corpuscular theory of light — that light would be diverted by heavenly bodies.

Johann Georg von Soldner

In a paper written in 1801 and published in 1804, he calculated the amount of deflection of a light ray by a star. Soldner concluded that those effects couldn’t be measured using the technology of the day. Soldner’s work on the effect of gravity on light came to be considered less relevant during the nineteenth century, as “corpuscular” theories and calculations based on them were increasingly considered to have been discredited in favor of wave theories of light.

The wave theory predicted that light waves could interfere with each other like sound waves (as noted around 1800 by Thomas Young). Young showed by means of a diffraction experiment that light behaved as waves. He also proposed that different colours were caused by different wavelengths of light, and explained colour vision in terms of three-coloured receptors in the eye. However, the belief (at the time) was that waves could not act like a particle.

Once experiments determined that light usually acts like a wave, the corpuscular theory of light was dismissed. Waves are energy. According to Galilean physics, energy can’t have mass. Matter has mass. According to Galilean physics, matter can’t act like a wave. Starting about 1810, scientists started believing that light was pure energy. The idea that light could act both like a wave and like a particle was introduced by Einstein AFTER he developed relativity.” (I find this convenient)https://www.quora.com/In-simple-language-how-did-Einstein-prove-that-light-can-be-bent-in-the-Theory-of-Relativity

How do you explain coloured light in terms of particles?

Wave–Particle Duality – The Great Science Swindle

Albert Einstein on wave–particle duality: “It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do.“

George Paget Thomson

In 1937 George Paget Thomson was awarded a Nobel prize in physics for his discovery of the wave properties of the electron.
Earlier in 1897 his father Joseph John Thomson, was awarded a Nobel prize in physics and was credited with the discovery and identification of the electron; and with the discovery of the first subatomic particle. Science cannot function without particles, but making waves and fields into particles proved to be difficult.

Wiki says: Although the use of the wave-particle duality has worked well in physics, the meaning or interpretation has not been satisfactorily resolved. (Because it’s illogical)While the mathematics, though complicated, makes accurate predictions, the physical meaning of these equations are much harder to grasp. The attempt to explain what the wave particle duality “actually means” is a key point of debate in quantum physics. Many interpretations exist to try to explain this, but they are all bound by the same set of wave equations … and, ultimately, must explain the same experimental observations.https://www.thoughtco.com/wave-particle-duality-2699037

The physicists give the impression that this was long ago put to bed and tucked in securely, but it is, in reality, a mess of the first order. The “eclipse proofs” were never proven because the true nature of light and that of all electromagnetic radiation has never been resolved. The mathematics of physics is a swindle that has fooled the public for a hundred years and this is why the so called “proofs” of Einstein’s theories are always controversial.

Relativistic Deflection of Light Near the SunUsing Radio Signals and Visible LightP. Marmet and C. Couture,Physics Department, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, On. Canada, K1N 6N5

newtonphysics.on.ca: This paper shows how all the experiments claiming the deflection of light and radio waves by the Sun are subjected to very large systematic errors, which render the results highly unreliable and proving nothing. A previous preliminary paper (*) giving an analysis of the experiments using visible light already appeared on the subject. Furthermore, the internal incoherence of general relativity, which leads to a double velocity of light on Earth, adds to the weakness of these tests. Following those difficulties, and since it has also been demonstrated that the deflection of light by a gravitational potential is not compatible with the principle of mass-energy conservation, we show that no one can seriously claim that light is really deflected by the Sun.

Further Einstein proofs that are not

Louis Essen

electromagnetism.demon.co.uk: “Louis Essen, elected FRS for developing the Caesium (Atomic) Clock, wrote to Nature that the alleged confirmation of Relativity by the gentlemen who took Caesium Clocks round the world by airplane was bogus because the caesium clock did not have the claimed accuracy. Nature refused to publish, preferring the PC ‘confirmation’ of relativity to stand.”

Science tells lies and Essen is obviously not one of the inner sanctum of faceless, nameless and enlightened physicists who understand the perfect scam, the magical, metaphysical production of infinitesimally small or large, incredibly, ‘accurate’ numbers from numbers that are statistically generated or based upon the non-existent.

Every clock depends on a tick/tock, be it by pendulum, spring escapement or quartz crystal, to keep time and the more accurate the tick, the more accurate the clock. The atomic clock has an extremely accurate tick/tock synchronised with the Caesium 133 atom. Unfortunately, it is necessary to establish the length of a second before one can calibrate an atomic clock. In other words, the Caesium 133 atom used in the clock does not oblige by giving a tick/tock that is an exact match to, or fraction of a second. And so, the standard second has to be determined beforehand to calibrate the atomic clock. No magical second appears in the clock itself, this is done by returning to the original method, ancient and hoary with age, the positions of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars and the second obtained by the angle of Earth’s rotation is called ‘ephemeris time’. Ephemeris time however, does not correspond to anything in nature. See Physics no Applications

The GPS Problem

It’s a popular and very common misconception that Einstein’s relativity theories have been proven many times. The in-vogue idea being, that the operation of the Global Positioning System (GPS) is a living proof that relativity is a real effect.
Every so-called proof has historically been riven with controversy and GPS is no exception. Some physicists were sure that GPS would not work because of relativistic effects, others now insist that it’s because of relativistic effects that it does work. What this seems to show is that physicists are just as much in the dark as the rest of us? But they have the advantage of being supported by science, mainstream media and education.

Rethinking Relativity by Tom Bethell

….”To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system “works.” Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earth’s surface), and since in Einstein’s theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these corrections were not made. Yet “the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch,” Van Flandern said. “They have basically blown off Einstein.”

The latest findings are not in agreement with relativistic expectations. To accommodate these findings, Einsteinians are proving adept at arguing that if you look at things from a different “reference frame,” everything still works out fine. But they have to do the equivalent of standing on their heads, and it’s not convincing. A simpler theory that accounts for all the facts will sooner or later supplant one that looks increasingly Rube Goldberg-like. I believe that is now beginning to happen.” Link removed

Dingle’s Question:

Herbert Dingle

“University of London Professor Herbert Dingle showed why special relativity will always conflict with logic, no matter when we first learn it. According to the theory, if two observers are equipped with clocks, and one moves in relation to the other, the moving clock runs slower than the non-moving clock. But the relativity principle itself (an integral part of the theory) makes the claim that if one thing is moving in a straight line in relation to another, either one is entitled to be regarded as moving. It follows that if there are two clocks, A and B, and (either) one of them is moved, clock A runs slower than B, and clock B runs slower than A. Which is absurd. (This has never been resolved)

Dingle’s Question was this: “Which clock runs slow? Physicists could not agree on an answer. As the debate raged on, a Canadian physicist wrote to Nature in July 1973: “Maybe the time has come for all of those who want to answer to get together and to come up with one official answer. Otherwise the plain man, when he hears of this matter, may exercise his right to remark that when the experts disagree they cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong.”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Dingle

It matters not that this logical error is disputed by all and sundry in the physics community, it still remains, and will always remain a logical error, just one of many in Einstein’s theories. The complaints of relativists prove that logic (common sense) is cast to the four winds in order to support a crazy, illogical, theory. Logic, according to science has become the mathematics of computers. And so the “plain man” has nothing left to reason with – or so science would have us believe. My own logical common sense, equal to that of any physicist, even though I am not a physicist, tells me that this is BS.